Interview about Reformed Baptist Theology

Speaking of Calvinists, one has used his libertarian free will to come on today. His name is

Jeremiah Nortier. I believe it's pronounced a bit different in his local Arkansas. He can actually tell us the butchered way of how

Americans would pronounce that French word. But be that as it may, yes, he's a Calvinist, but he's also a friend of mine we actually met after he had a debate with a mutual friend of ours,

Joseph Lowell, who's a Latter -day Saint who runs the LDS Philosophy website. It was on a World's View debate on the

Gospel True podcast, and it ran for four hours. If the Catholics are right about purgatory, everyone who watched it got an indulgence for sitting still for four hours.

But it was an excellent debate, and I will actually be linking to it. And since then, we've actually been friends, we've actually teamed up together to discuss the

Marian Damas, particularly the Magna Conception, because Jeremiah had a debate on that issue. Maybe he wants to tell us about that and the interesting aftermath as a result of that.

But Jeremiah, joking aside, pleasure to have you on. Robert, thank you so much for having me on.

And I love how we can be friends, and we can talk about theology, and we can talk about each other's libertarian free will.

So thank God you recognize it. But I really,

I've learned a lot from you. Like you said, we connected through my debate with Joseph Lowell, and Joseph challenged me in a lot of ways, especially in terms of philosophy.

I have a heart for philosophy and theology, and so I enjoyed getting to talking with him about many of those issues as well.

And then with you, I can see your heart and love for exegesis and more of those theological mindsets.

And so I just look at it as the best of both worlds, and so I've really enjoyed getting to know both of y 'all.

Oh, thanks. I appreciate it. And our theological differences aside, I've appreciated our friendship for the past year, year and a half,

I believe. So it's always good. Now, today we are actually going to be giving an introduction to the

Reformed Baptist tradition. And Jeremiah, he's actually himself a Reformed Baptist. So we're going to be asking him some questions and for him to justify his belief in particular doctrines.

There's a couple of reasons for this. Most critics who are theists of the Latter -day

Saint faith Mormonism are actually from a Reformed Calvinistic persuasion. Think Rob Bowman, James White, and others.

Particularly Reformed Baptists, but sometimes pretty conservative Presbyterian as well, like Turreton Fan, who's named after actually my favorite

Reformed theologian, the Reed Francis Turreton. But this is not going to be a debate.

This is not going to be any gotcha. This is going to be like an introduction to what Reformed Baptists believe, because one, it's going to be an important tool for Latter -day

Saints to actually properly understand the Reformed faith. There's been, unfortunately, many caricatures of Calvinism, like damned if you do, damned if you don't.

So like anti -nomanism all the way. I'm sure you've come across that caricature yourself from even

Arminians on your side of things. But also,

I do want to have a series where people of non -Latter -day Saint faith traditions come on to give an overview of their faith and to give reasons for it.

So it'll be educational for Latter -day Saints and non -Latter -day Saints as well. For instance, I'll be reaching out soon to Christodelphians in Dublin.

The Christodelphians are a Unitarian Restorations group I've actually done a lot of work and research on for the last 10 years, particularly their

Christology. They don't believe in the personal pre -existence of Jesus, something we actually would affirm mutually together.

So yeah, so this is going to be like an educational series. And I don't think, unlike the Anglican episode, it will run for two and a half hours, but we'll see.

So Jeremiah, you're a Reformed Baptist, but before we're going to go into like what that is, you know, how about you give an introduction to who you are, where you live, your family, and also the team in the back, you told me to plug as well.

Yeah, yeah. So Jeremiah Nortier, like Robert was saying, we're in the

South, so we don't say the Nortier flavor of things. So Nortier, because we're in Arkansas in the

United States. So the town I'm in is actually Jonesboro, Arkansas, and I get the pleasure of serving at 12 .5

Church. This is actually a new church plant, and I encourage anybody to get on our church website.

If you know anybody, definitely tell them about me. Tell them about 12 .5

Church. My heart's desire ultimately is to give all the glory to God in all that I do.

And, you know, as a Christian, I primarily follow Jesus Christ the way that I understand how he's revealed himself to us in his word.

So that's just a little bit about the place that I serve in 12 .5 Church in Jonesboro, Arkansas. And this is actually the first time

I've released this graphic about a ministry that I'm looking to pursue.

So I thought, man, this would be cool to do this with Robert. But it's going to be the apologetic dog.

This is an apologetics ministry. And in the culture that I'm in, one of the major, in my opinion, false teachings that's out there is called

Church of Christ. Now, Robert, you've looked into the history of Alexander Campbell and that whole movement.

It's actually not a new movement in terms of the whole spectrum of church history. But my area is heavily influenced by Church of Christ.

And so one of my major areas of emphasis will be contending against how I see works righteousness that are being taught in the

Church of Christ movement. And so I want to tell you just a little bit of the idea of where the apologetic dog comes from.

And you see this First Timothy 620. So that verse says this, Robert, Oh, Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you.

Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge.

So the idea is that this is a guard dog guarding the deposit that's been entrusted not only to Timothy, but also been handed down to saints.

And so my idea is that I want to guard the truth. I also want to contend for truth. But it's in this apologetic sphere.

And then another verse reason why I really started gravitating to this is talking about avoiding irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge.

So I hope to get to talk to Joseph Leal again in the future. But I have a heart and desire for epistemology.

I believe knowledge is dependent on truth and understanding and ascertaining truth is also dependent on one's worldview of epistemology.

So I think this verse really shows us how truth is connected to the gospel's connected truth and how truth is connected to one's epistemology.

I think all of these can be bundled up and wrapped up in a particular worldview. So those are just a few endeavors,

Robert, that I hope to have in the up and coming future. And so I get to tell everybody firstly on your podcast.

Oh, that's a world first. And I actually like the beard of the dog, you know. Ah, you caught on.

Yeah. I, for those who don't know, sometimes me and Jeremiah joke that the only thing reformed about me is my beard.

His fellow pastor, Nathan, just kind of got that joke as well just earlier. And with respect to the church,

I'll be linking to that. And with respect to Joseph Lowell, for those who are listening, we hope to have him on the near future to give a critique of reformed presuppositionalism.

So maybe after that, we can actually arrange a part two between you and Joseph, maybe on a specific topic, because as great as the debate was you had on the gospel truth, it covered so much and so little time.

But yeah, thanks for the plug. So anything else you want to share about you in terms of your personal life and other issues?

Sure. So I serve as a pastor, like we've been talking about. I've been married at this point up to six years, and I have a beautiful bride named

Allie Nortier. And she, Robert, she's actually not only my better half, but we've determined she's the better 75 % of our relationship.

So we are in the process of adoption. So we are really excited about what the Lord has in store for us there.

I've never been a dad before, so I'm ready as much as I'll ever be, I guess. But apart from that, in the world of apologetics,

I've really been heavily influenced by Dr. James White. So I love his heart and passion for contending for the faith, especially in terms of debate.

I, it's funny, because people that know me will be like, no, Jeremiah, you like to argue, because I would like to consider myself as a very chill, positive person.

And through debates, like hooking up with Marlon on the gospel truth, my heart and my prayer is to show people how to lovingly engage with theological doctrinal issues.

And I believe the verse is Ephesians 4 .15 about speaking the truth in love. And so, Robert, when

I get a chance to talk to you, LDS, when I get a chance to interact with people of different faiths,

I want to model that. And so that's my biggest encouragement to people, is when we see the scriptures that tell us to sanctify the

Lord Jesus in our hearts, you must be able to give a defense for the hope that lies within us. But you must always be sanctifying the

Lord in your heart, doing this with gentleness and respect. And in a single word, that is with love. And so that's why

I'm having a good friendship with you. Man, I'm all for us talking about these, and I'll be the first to tell people, Robert has challenged me more than one time.

I definitely recommend going to his website, where he writes really good articles, and challenging me and my position.

And I loved it. I look at that as sharpening one another. So yeah, I guess that's just a little bit more information about me and the direction

I plan to go down. No, that's perfect. As I said, I'll have a link to your church on the show notes, as well as the link to the debate you had with Joseph Lowell.

And also, you had another debate with a Catholic a couple months ago. I think it was in May. I remember it was in Mexico at the time, trying to get into the

U .S. on the sinlessness of Mary. For those who know me, Mariology is like one of my favorite topics.

So it was good to actually hook up with you and actually have something in common theologically for once, you know?

Yes, Robert. I remember when I reached out to you to let you know, hey, I got another debate coming up.

And I told you, and you're like, are pigs flying? We actually agree on this issue.

And so I read a couple chapters of the book that you wrote. And it was very insightful to some of the exegetical arguments.

Because with me being Sola Scriptura, for me, that's going to be my ultimate authority is, you know, what does the

Bible say at the end of the day? And how can we arbitrate between things and look at context? And so I thought you had some really good, helpful insight in that area.

Thanks. I appreciate it. And I might be putting up a revised edition in the next few years. I've done a lot of work in the Syrian folders because they're usually the go -to by some.

No, they did not believe in the Immaculate Conception. So look out for that information in the near future.

Okay, so with Ash, we're going to be discussing what is a Reformed Baptist. So now,

I know what a Reformed Baptist is. I'm sure some do. But for those who may not know, what's a Reformed Baptist? You know, why can't you just be a regular

Baptist? What's so Reformed about being a Baptist? I'm sure you kind of got those questions from some people.

You know, it's like, why not just be a regular Baptist? What do you have to perform? So if someone were to ask you, and we'll be going through some of these specifics as well, like baptism,

Lord's Supper, and other issues, what is a Reformed Baptist? Yeah, that's a great question because where I'm from, there is a lot of, quote unquote, normal traditional

Baptists. A lot of times, I put that in the Southern Baptist category. But when we look at our heritage, this goes all the way back to the

Protestant Reformation. I tell people initially, if you're not a Roman Catholic, you know, in our culture, in our context, then you should be

Reformed. We are modified and distinct, and in some sense, still protesting against Rome today.

And so Reformed in the most broad sense, I tell people is essentially not to be Catholic. Like we disagree on the gospel as Rome understands it.

But in a more specific sense, I tell people being Reformed really has to look at the, you have to look at the attributes of God.

And you have to look at the attributes of man. And I see the Reformed umbrella being very specific with understanding who

God is and his sovereignty. And then you get into terms like monergism and synergism. All these things are very important.

So I distance myself a little bit from the Southern Baptist, regular Baptist crowd, because I find myself agreeing with the

Reformers and even Proto -Reformers beforehand, a very particular view of the sovereignty of God.

I think that's what sets us apart. But I would be very similar and in line with a lot of the

Puritans. And I have a lot of awesome brothers that are Presbyterians. I have more in common with them than I see myself having with a typical

Baptist that do hold to this libertarian free will that we talked about and joked about a little bit.

But that's kind of some of the issues. A Reformed Baptist, more on the Baptist side, I believe that a person should be fully immersed based on their profession of faith.

So that's what separates me from the Presbyterians that typically engage with sprinkling.

I have a lot of grace in those issues. I think those would be more secondary and tertiary issues.

I can still fellowship and get along great with the Presbyterian that sees the mode of baptism different.

But it's those like we were talking about earlier, I just recently did a debate with the Church of Christ. And it's funny because I agree with the mode of baptism that they perform, which is full immersion based on one's profession.

But they see this as salvific. They would actually differ with your stance on baptismal regeneration.

When you really press them, it's really more a baptismal justification.

And that's obviously causes a world of problems as I see it. So it's just interesting because Reformed Baptist carries a great heritage.

It's a particular view on the mode of baptism and the Reformed aspect. The way I explain it to people is really how you understand who

God is and who man is. And maybe for those who may just be wondering, so we're not speaking past one another,

Reformed in this context doesn't simply mean Reformation. It means Calvinistic, if you will, like the five pines. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

No, that's perfect. Okay. So for a Reformed Baptist, of course, like the Bible, and we'll maybe discuss what Sola Scriptura is and what it's not momentarily.

But of course, like the Bible, the 66 books of the Proverbs and Canon would be your ultimate standard of truth.

Because in your view, that would be at least in terms of the autographs, the soul, infallible Word of God, and so forth.

However, what are the other subordinate standards of faith for a Reformed Baptist? Yeah, it's interesting because I would point people a lot to the early ecumenical councils.

I think there's a lot of really good things that have been said throughout church history. And kind of the two pillars, if you will, that rise to the top is actually encourage people to look at the

Westminster Confession of Faith. And then obviously, being Reformed Baptist, the 1689

Second London Baptist Confession of Faith kind of rises to the top and saying, hey, that's really more of where we land.

And since Sola Scriptura is my ultimate conviction, I even tell people, hey, even within that, there are things and nuances that perhaps

I would see differently and understand. That's why I can kind of import this Westminster saying, hey, there's a lot of good things in there.

And then obviously, there's disagreements. But I think those two confessions, in my mind here, kind of rise to the top,

Robert. Okay. And also, I'm sure, at least historically, the

Synod of Dort, or Dort Direct, where the Five Pines were hammered out in 1618 to 1619 would be of great importance as well against the

Remonstrants. Can I make a comment on the Synod of Dort real quick? So this is some rich history that I tell people is really important to look into.

Because with the Synod of Dort, you had this remonstrance, this movement of saying, hey, we disagree with kind of what was orthodox at the time.

And so they had these five points. Essentially, what we know now is Arminianism, right?

And so Calvinism kind of began as a defense or as a response to the remonstrance.

So you had this counter remonstrance. And what's interesting, I tell people, because, you know, I'm repping today, Robert, with the tulip, right?

I tell people the way that this came out of church history was more of a defense. So this didn't have the benefit of having five points presented in a positive fashion.

And there's really rich historical reasons for that. And Robert, I think you'll appreciate this. I tell people if history could have been rewritten, a better acronym would have been

Stulip, beginning with the S, with God's sovereignty. Because really, these five points hang with the proper understanding of who

God is. Okay, that's perfect. And you've kind of touched upon some of the distinctives of the

Reformed Baptist tradition, like credo as opposed to pedo -baptism. What are some of the other distinctives of the

Reformed Baptists in comparison to, say, regular, you know, the typical Baptist you might come across on the street, as well as, say,

Presbyterians who would hold to the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith? Yeah, and just to go back with kind of the major distinctions with Reformed Baptists and regular

Baptists is kind of this issue of free will. And, you know, when you look at the

Westminster and when you look at the 1689, we do believe in free will, but it's a different kind of free will, something that I encourage people to look up into the terminology as compatibilistic free will.

This is a view that sees man's choices as truly choosing things according to your heart's desire, like you weigh the cost, you want something, and you do it.

We would just say this is compatible with God's foreordination and him having purpose in all things in creating this world.

The typical Baptist doesn't, in my interaction, and there's some people like Leighton Flowers, I would encourage people to go listen to Soteriology 101, another critical thinker, and I think very highly of, but he would have a libertarian free will view of man.

And so those are some of the distinctions with Baptists. Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians, there's a couple things that we would understand differently, like the view of the covenant that God has with man.

I would say they're very close, but how one utilizes the regulative principle, I think that's when you press it down.

That's why they arrive with baptizing babies through sprinkling. As with a Reformed Baptist, just kind of looks at the whole of redemptive history a little bit differently, and we still hold to a regulative principle of worship and how we're to understand what's valid in the

Old Testament, what carries over into the new. But we would see the Old Testament covenants on having a fulfillment in the new, and so how that kind of carries over is spiritual children do receive the new covenant sign, but we'd say these are spiritual children of the faith that are physically grown and can make a profession and can repent and believe.

And so those are a little bit of the differences, Robert, with how we would see a little bit of distinction with Presbyterians and other things like the mode of not only baptism, but the ordinance of the

Lord's Supper. I would have a little bit difference even with Calvin on the issue, and you'll probably see my

Baptist coming out of me a little bit more when we start talking about those things. That's perfect. And just because like most, of course, most

Baptists are not King James -onlyists, but most King James -onlyists tend to be Baptists. You would not belong to any

King James -only strand. No, no, no, no. I have a heart for textual criticism and looking at the history of how

God has preserved His word, but no, I would probably be willing to debate it actually one day because I think it's that important of an issue that our

English translations are not the thing that God inspired and preserved, but He spoke in time and space and spoke through the prophets.

He spoke in these last days through His son Jesus, and that has a rich history.

The Bible is both a divine book and a human historical book, and so we're allowed to look at historical tools to investigate those things, but no,

I'm against King James -onlyism. And for those who may be wondering, King James -onlyism is not the,

I prefer the King James or like I just subjectively think it sounds better. You know, they're acceptable positions even if I think they're errant.

King James -onlyism is basically the King James, at least the 1611, maybe some other revision, is the inerrant word of God.

Even some may privilege it more than the autography or the autographs functionally. But yeah, as I said,

I just want, just in case some people were thinking like, is he a King James -onlyist? No, he's not. I think he has a lot of theology wrong, but he's not crazy.

Thank you. But yeah, if any King James -onlyist wants to come on to this channel and debate

Jeremiah, you know, or this would be actually something we could probably actually team together, because I think King James -onlyism in that kind of strand is like anti -intellectual, anti -critical.

So, but yeah, that's going to go into like giving a brief overview of Reformed Baptist beliefs. And of course, not all of these are distinctives of Reformed Baptist, but for your theological take, if you will, as a

Reformed Baptist. The first, of course, is one of the favorite topics I'd like to discuss, but we won't be debating it.

Don't worry. The issue of the Bible, the authority of scripture, what is and what is not sola scriptura?

So, I'll let you go ahead. So, sola scriptura is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice in life of Christian is scripture.

And what that boils down, it says that our ultimate authority in our Christian walk is God's word.

And so I tell people over the course of history, God spoke verbally. I believe it's Numbers 12 kind of gives us a brief overview that God would speak in these ways with a booming voice.

He would speak through giving visions. He would speak in these ways that in these last days, really, we go back to scripture the way that Paul told

Timothy is theionustos and God breathed. And so I would look to other principles like being noble Bereans.

When we hear a philosophy, not that philosophy is bad, but philosophy has to be measured.

Any teachings or anything has to ultimately be grounded in scripture. And so that's the heart of a reformed

Baptist is we're trying the teachings that we hear, we're wanting to measure it with the word of God to see if it's true or not.

Because Robert, and you know a lot of these things, but just for the benefit of the audience, when we look to passages like John 1035,

Jesus says scripture cannot be broken. Hebrews chapter six, God makes an oath and he swears by himself because there's no greater authority.

And so we're trying to say whatever is ultimate, that's the ultimate measuring stick of how we live.

And so something that we're bound by, by creatures created in time is our own interpretation, our own perception of things.

So even that has to bend to the will of God's word. So that's what scripture is.

And I think Joseph Leal did a good job in our conversation a while back of saying something that's solo scriptura is not.

And he used a good term called solo scriptura. This is not solo scriptura.

And I would actually say, this is kind of what the church of Christ actually teach. They'll say things along the lines of, it's just my

Bible and me under a tree, no creed, but Christ. And I think that is foolish. We can look to other standards that are lower than scripture itself.

That's why we're talking about ecumenical councils. We're talking about creeds. We look to pastors, we look to commentaries, teachers, all these things are wonderful in the life of a

Christian, but they have to ultimately bend the knee back to scripture. And so the Christian life, it's one -on -one with God through prayer and spending time in his word, but it's also communal.

That's why we gather together on the Lord's day. And it's a, it's a community relationship as well.

So it's not this idea that it's just my Bible, me and the Holy spirit, and that's all I need for the

Christian walk. I tell people, Jesus has been building his church for 2000 years. That's incredible. I would benefit to read the saints of old and see how the

Holy spirit has blessed them and given them wisdom and their knowledge and understanding of the scripture. And your scriptural justification for like, um, say solo scripture, of course, would be second

Timothy three, 16 to 17. And of course there's texts like John 10, 35, uh, Hebrew six.

And also you alluded to earlier Hebrews one, one to two and other texts. Would that be correct? Yeah, that's great.

Um, yeah, all those texts that basically bolster, uh, the scripture, maybe

John 17, 17 is another important one. I would tell people where Jesus is praying to the father, father sanctified them and your truth.

Then he says, your word is truth. And going to stop top of the head here. I think it's Psalm 138 verse two.

And he talks about the name of God being preeminent. And he, in the same breath, he also says, um, your, your, your name and your word kind of being close there.

And so, yeah, no, no, you, you, you definitely know our position. Well, yeah. And for those who want a lottery scene to overview, see, um, my book, not by scripture alone.

It's for free on my blog, but I won't be debating you on this. I just want to educate people. Thank you. I I'm, I'm doing my best here.

I'm trying to be friendly. Thank you. Okay. So that's what solo scripture is and what's not. It's not a simply me and my

Bible, although to be fair, some do have that for you, but as Madison and others have noticed, uh, and by the way, everyone should read keep

Madison's book, the shape of soul scripture. It's probably the best single volume working the modern era on solo scripture, uh, tradition type zero and tradition type one and two.

He discusses, it's not like a new descriptor or solo scripture, like me and my Bible, you know, under the tree, you know, praise the loud, but it's more like it's, it's the ultimate source.

It's the only thing that's used to us or God breed as this privative status. But yes, uh, you know, there's other subordinate standards to faith, you know, like the 1689

Baptist confession of faith and other creeds and confessions as well, as long as you're in one's view, infidelity to scripture, you know?

Yeah. No, that's, that's good. Um, that's a common misconception. One often comes across, and I say this as a critic of soul scripture.

So that's kind of a brief overview of like, uh, scripture, um, in terms of ecclesiology.

And I know you know this, but like for those may be wondering, that's a fancy term for the theology of the church. What would a reformed

Baptist understanding of the ecclesiology of both the local church, like twelve five church, but also the universal or global church, what would that or day be like?

So that's, those are the two distinctions that are to be made. So when we do see in, uh,

Matthew 16, that Jesus says, I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

There's this universal, uh, church that exists and the way, and I think you just alluded to it, but this is, this is believers, um, that are, are in the fold that are walking with the

Lord and are saved. And so then you have the church, uh, the local church, the visible church and our ecclesiology, how we pretty much structure the church.

This is a big difference in how the Presbyterians, the other reformed crowd would be, um, you know, they have this, this hierarchy, if you will.

Um, they have this presbytery, um, and that's, in my understanding, this is a huge difference with reformed

Baptist. We're pretty much autonomous. Hey, there's some form of autonomy that I believe in Robert.

Uh, uh, so we're not really held. You're not far from the kingdom of God. We don't have an apparatus above us.

We are operating independently, but I will also tell people, but we partner with other churches.

Perhaps there are conventions that are probably good to be a part of, to have some accountability, but in, in terms of our church structures, we just have an eldership and we have deacons.

So obviously we're not Roman Catholic. We don't see any validity when it comes to the Pope or the magisterium cardinals, things like that.

Um, and we looked at Scott's priesthood momentarily as well. So we'll help warranty the priesthood of all believers. Yes. Um, so,

I mean, just talking about brief flower views, we just see two roles in the church body elders that are, and my understanding is elders are also pastors.

And they are also overseers. I think those are just talking about the same office, just from different angles.

And so like, I'm an elder, but I'm not that old. I have a beard, but the way I'd look at those, those passages are saying that you must be mature spiritually.

Right. And just, um, just as a nerdy aside, the, uh, the term for Hebrew for elder and also beard are actually the same route.

That's good. Um, but, um, we're very liturgical at 12, five church, meaning that we have an order of worship that we, we see as being biblical.

Like we have a call to worship. We integrate prayer throughout. We sing Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.

Um, we're just kind of like, Hey, more the merrier. And we see that, um, you know, we don't, we're not strictly like singing the

Psalter, right. Singing hymns, but man, why wouldn't we include that? You know, but, but you would hold to the, uh, exclusive Samadhi position.

That's, um, Baptists I would hold to. Right. Yeah. And for those who may be wondering, that's the idea, like exclusive Samadhi.

I think that's the term, uh, some groups like the Covenants Presbyterian church up in my native Ireland in the north,

I would hold to, it's like, you Christians are only to seen the Psalter and that's it.

But you wouldn't hold to that more extreme liturgical position. Right. And some biblical grounds that have,

I think it's first Corinthians or it's Colossians three and Ephesians five that talks about singing to one another in Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.

And so I just see the, I see it being a little bit broader than that, but I think a lot of that comes down to conviction.

And I have a lot of respect for people that are wanting to sing the word or solo scriptura. So, I mean, it's, I'm not too far off from saying,

Hey, you know, do it, um, trying to think what else is really important.

Well, just on that, like, uh, that's something we would actually agree with, because like, if you go through the New Testament, a lot of decrees like a

Colossians one, 15 to 20 and Philippians two, six to 11, they're actually poetic. And like, so was the prologue of John, which, you know, so who knows, we actually, actually agree on something else as well.

Something else that not a lot of Baptists do, um, but we actually have the

Lord's supper every Sunday. Most traditional Baptists do it quarterly, uh, four times a year.

And this has been a long road for me because I, I come out of the Southern Baptist movement and I will just tell you,

Robert, like, it's very, it's wonderful gathering together in unity with the body weekly to do these things.

The thing you got to guard against though, is making it mundane and ritualistic. One of the things that guards me from that is reading the warning passage in first Corinthians 11, that there is an unworthy manner that Paul is saying, you need to search your heart out for these things.

And so, you know, just in short, uh, we do actually take, you know, it could be called the

Eucharist or communion, but we do partake in the Lord's supper weekly. And that's actually foreign where I'm from around here.

We're the only church that does that and is reformed Baptist. Yeah. And we'll be discussing like a Eucharistic theology, um, soon because we're actually going into the ordinances now, but anything else you want to offer on the ecclesiology?

Um, I think we hit a lot of the high points. Um, I do want to, once again, just reiterate, um, when we talk about autonomy, um, we're not appealing to like a, a bigger apparatus, but something that I'm encouraged to do and other churches is you do want to partner with other churches to have that checks and balances.

And so members of the church, this is interesting because, uh, we don't really have a

Robert rules of order, um, in terms of, you know, voting and things like that because the under shepherds, they're the ones that have, you know, in a sense, the keys to the kingdom of heaven, kind of, we look to those passages differently.

Um, but a lot of, when it comes to spiritual matters, we say, look, it's the elders that you should be trusting to guard your souls from.

And so a lot of Baptists are congregational ruled. And, you know, I just, I don't see that being the biblical route for us.

We are elder ruled and it's not that we're ruling with an iron fist and are domineering. We're very much in tune with the flock, um, but deacons and the church are more going to be voting for things that are, um, you know, what the building looks like, um, certain events that are coming up, but they don't really have their hands in the spiritual realm.

If that makes sense. Sure. And just like two questions on it and they're not culture, but like, uh, just for clarification, when it comes to the

Matthew 16 text, as well as parallel in Matthew 18, like, uh, you would understand the keys to be like, um, more evangelistic.

So how I understand that is, um, this has been given to the church and the, the church's rich history begins with that apostolic, um, starting point with the apostles.

And so everything like in terms of me teaching and preaching, I'm going back to the whole council of God, um, a lot of it to the, the didactic teachings of the apostles.

And so when a church makes it, I say church, when an eldership makes a decision, we've, we've consulted the scripture on a matter of church discipline or something we're saying, ultimately we're getting this from heaven.

We have this confirmation in heaven given to us through his word and the authority given to us to make a pronouncement on church disciplinary issues or a certain teaching issue.

So that's kind of, that's how I see the keys being played out. You kind of see it first with Peter, but you see it being used maybe in the new, and we can talk about ex -Jesus, um, you know, and maybe another time, but just from memory.

Um, but that also being applied to the apostles at large, and you kind of have them being foundational stones to the church.

And so that authority kind of carries to, um, elders within a church context. Okay. That's fine.

And when it comes to texts, like say first Timothy tree 16, I believe we're, uh, tree 15,

I should say where for instance, the NASB, uh, sees that the church of the living God is the pillar and support of the truth.

Would he, uh, would be correct to say that you would believe in other reformed Baptist would believe that it's referring not to the universal church, but more to the local body of believers in the local church.

Yeah, I think, I think that's how we, we would understand it as being more to the local church. And then when you read that the church, the pillar and buttress of the truth, it's kind of going back to the noble Berean mindset is we're upholding the word of God and testing all things to that ultimate standard.

But you're right. That's really more of the local church there. Okay. And, um, it being the pillar and ground of truth, or however one wants to render the

Greek, you would say that it's more like the local churches and the elders and the deacons making sure everyone is faithful to the

Bible and its teachings and so forth. Yeah. Robert, you'll appreciate this.

I was teaching on that one time to students and youth. And when I said buttress, that's the only thing that they could think about.

And then from then on else, it's been saying, sit your buttresses down. I'm like, oh my goodness. They totally missed the point.

Well, you tried, you know, um, it was predestined not to be right. Okay. No, that's no.

Okay. That's ecclesiology. Now we're going to be going into the ordinances or like sacraments to use different terminology, but you would use the term ordinance.

So let's discuss, and this is like an area of theology I love discussing as you know yourself. So the issue of baptism, um, as a reformed

Baptist, of course, you've mentioned this, you would practice, uh, not pedo by infant baptism, but creator or believers baptism.

And you would hold to the view. It's not to mean it's not to be done by any other means except immersion. You know, so apart from that, um, maybe, maybe some, well, actually that's kind of going to that.

Like if someone were to ask you, like, what's the justification for this as opposed to say pedo baptism, how would you respond?

And also could you discuss like the reformed Baptist understanding about the importance, the symbolism and the theology of water baptism?

Sure. You may have to remind me of some of those points again, as we go through. Um, so I have a lot of respect for the

Puritan history and the Presbyterians. I think what's most compelling. Number one is you definitely get clues.

So there are actually reformed views like an X two 38. Some people think that that's a spiritual baptism, or if they look to Mark 16, 16,

I don't particularly hold that view. I think it's hard given the clues throughout acts that they're coming up out of the water with John, the

Baptist, you have the Ethiopian Munich, um, and perhaps another place or two, but, or in, yeah, in Acts chapter 10 with Cornelius and the household water's involved like that.

That's where I tell people, um, I want to definitely pinpoint the times and acts as being water baptisms.

Well, I think it's important for a lot of those contexts and you have anomalies and you don't have, if you don't mind me just making a note of something, just in case someone

Jeremiah is making up a position. No one holds to you. This is actually popular. Uh, James Dunn, he was like a leading

New Testament scholar actually believed the baptism texts in the New Testament were rarely ever water baptism texts.

So it's not, it's, it's a minority position, but like, uh, he's not attacking a strawman. This is actually common. I didn't mean to interrupt you, but like, um, yeah,

No, you're right. Um, I remember reading a ton of commentary. Some people in Acts 2 38, we're trying to say that this was spiritual.

And I was like, Nope, I'm not, I'm not buying that. Um, cause there's too much continuity as you're reading acts that they're coming up out of the bath or out of the water or Peter saying, you know, what hinders them from being dipped in water, you know, or however he says it.

And so I think that's important of saying, look, these are water baptism texts as I understand it.

But I think where I start distancing myself from. Presbyterian. So like when we do talk about Acts 2 38 and 39, this is one of their verses that say, see to, to you and all of your children in verse 39, the promise.

And so what they kind of do is say, see, you can link verse 39 up to baptism. And I think one of the times that I started studying this the most,

I was listening to some debate with Dr. White, uh, maybe Greg Strawbridge. They had a debate on baptism. I think this is where I started understanding this mindset more and more.

Um, but Dr. White was, why do you stop at baptism and not continue with repent? And I thought, oh man, that's key.

And kind of our position in, in being credo professing to be a believer. Um, there's, there's gotta be some level of cognition that allows you to repent and believe the gospel.

And so you look at these cases of the Philippian jailer and people, you know, being able to say, what sirs, what must

I do to be saved? And they respond in this sentence and faith. And so Presbyterians would say that they believe in credo, uh, baptism too, for adults, right?

But they just have kind of had this added theology of how they, you know, also extend this to infants. So that's really important in my view,

Robert, is you do see a lot of explicit, I would say explicit passages of professing belief, and you kind of have to make an implicit read between the lines argument.

And it's their view of the, the regular principle and perhaps covenant, where maybe perhaps there's some good reasons to at least further the discussion there.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. No, that's, um, yeah, it's just like, uh, Presbyterians and others would point to the household baptisms.

They would think they probably had infants or young children and the entire household was baptized. So would it be fair to say you would not believe in, uh, infantile faith, like, uh, some

Peter Baptist, like Luther would hold you. Yeah. So, um, one text that a lot of people will point to, like,

I don't know if Luther pointed this, but my Presbyterian friends, they would say, look at John the Baptist. He had the spirit when he was in his mother's womb and leapt.

And I've always thought that was an interesting text because how I kind of understand that is similar to the prophet

Jeremiah and perhaps others of God's setting. Oh, I don't know. I was gonna say Galatians one with the apostle

Paul and his call to apostleship, even from the womb. I kind of see that being more of what's in, uh, in mind with John the

Baptist is you do have the spirit at work in his life, him being kind of set apart for a particular role, um, to be, you know,

Elijah, right. Coming in the spirit and power of Elijah. But I don't really see my understanding of the word faith pistis is from trust.

And I simply am not able to understand what that would look like on an infant level.

Um, if it's there, it's just, it's been hard for me to understand that from the scripture. Um, but this leads into other conversations about like, what does salvation look like or not look like?

Because it's the reformers that kind of have a bad name for the, the elect infants, if you will. Um, and yeah,

I study those things all the time and I try to help people understand kind of what

I think the Bible speaks to infants at that, you know. No, that's fine.

Um, so that's the rationale for credo as opposed to pedo -baptism. So as a reformed Baptist, what would your theology of baptism be positively and negatively?

Would you view it as only a symbol? Do you believe it's a commandment that believers should engage in? And I know the answer to this, but would you hold that it's necessary for salvation?

And if so, why? And let's give the game away. You don't. So why not?

Yeah, um, I'll be honest. So I try to stay away from the term sacraments.

Um, now, you know, my Presbyterian brothers, they actually own that term.

You know, these things being a means of God's grace, and I know some Lutherans that I respect and I see them as being in the fold and saved, but I do tend to lean more on the ordinance side of these being more symbolic rather than any substance of mediating grace and things like that.

I mean, I'm real, I'm also, I have room for saying, sure, are these means of grace and whatnot, but I do land more on these being symbolic, but I don't want to adopt a mere symbolic view.

Like I do think, you know, as I see this as sanctifying,

I do see it conforming us more and more into the image of Christ as we walk in obedience.

And I think that's me saying what I see that the General Baptist or the

Southern Baptist, I think they have this pure memorialistic view of the Lord's Supper and baptism.

I think it's more than that, but I don't go all the way to saying this is a sacrament, that this is, there's some type of metaphysic of God with his people that's going on, that's not already there with having the indwelling

Holy Spirit. You know what I mean? Yeah, just when you say it's sanctifying, so in your view, and I don't want to press you too hard on this.

So in your view, would you believe that the act of baptism, even, I know you reject baptismal regeneration, but the act of baptism in one's main church, it's an aid in one's progress in processional sanctification?

Yeah, you cut out a little bit on there, but I think I understood your question. So my understanding of like justification, sanctification, you got verses like 1

Corinthians 611 that show you just how close in my mind justification and sanctification are.

Once a person is justified, my position would be by faith alone or apart from works.

You are immediately sanctified at that moment. It's almost like this instantaneous miracle, but your whole life is that correct?

Yes, positional sanctification. And then we now live in progressive sanctification.

So baptism would be a part of that. It's sanctifying when you're being obedient. And I would say when we quench the spirit, then

God will necessarily discipline us even within this overarching umbrella of sanctification.

Does that kind of help where I'm coming from? Sorry, I was muted. Yes, that makes perfect sense. No, that's good.

Okay, and as a Reformed Baptist, to give the game away because you did have a debate on this, you would reject the idea that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

So what's the rationale for that? Because many, and I would be one of them, would point to texts where water baptism, like Acts 2,

Romans 6, and other passages are tied. And you know the arguments yourself, and I'm not going to debate you on this at the moment, maybe in the future, are tied in seemingly to the means of salvation.

For instance, repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins. Or Romans 6, where we're united to Christ in baptism.

And in verse 7, it uses decay. Uh -oh. Some translations render it free. Some, like Fitzmer says, it refers to self -evident justification.

And a host of other texts as well. You know them. So without kind of going into like a water baptism, baptismal regeneration debate, what would the rationale and justification, pun kind of intended, for the

Baptist view would be? It's interesting because I've noticed, even in my

Reformed heritage, I take a slightly nuanced, different approach.

And when I go back to Luther and some of these guys, and even Calvin, you know, being more of the Presbyterian side, they have a lot more room open for the sacraments.

And so I think it's interesting because my view is definitely compatible with God monogistically working out all things.

And then you got man's perspective. That's how I understand we are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

It's from our perspective. I don't think it negates, you know, God's overarching sovereignty at work and things.

But I think, Robert, what it boils down to for me is understanding how faith and works relate to one another and how they are distinct.

Because I tend to hold a very strong view of works being human energy, human accomplishment.

As you get up and you move about, I would hold the position that everything that we do externally are works.

And so it's pretty obvious how I see that. I see baptism as a work of man.

And I do see it as a work of God as well. And so I see faith as being more immaterial.

And you heard in maybe my debate, I say it's of the heart. It's internal. Faith is pistis, to have firm trust or conviction of the truth.

So we're talking about different categories. You got external works of man, the things that we get up and we do. And then you got faith being internal and of the heart.

So you kind of have these two categories. And for me, Robert, I look to Romans 4 as a big justification for why

I would see baptism as being a work. And then I would look to Ephesians chapter 2, verses 8, 9, and 10, being a big part in that discussion.

Obviously, a lot of other texts. But I think when you start boiling down my position, there's a few key definitions that I really try to develop.

It's justification and sanctification. It's faith and works and then defining what baptism is.

Okay, so, okay. And because I promised you I won't turn this into a debate, I'm not going to debate about Romans 4 and Genesis 15 and Psalm 32.

Maybe next time, though. You know, that would be a good discussion. So that would be like a Reformed Baptist view on baptism.

So let's kind of move on to another always interesting topic to discuss, and that's the Eucharist, the Lord's Supper, you know, however you want to call it.

So what would your Reformed Baptist understanding of the Eucharist, the Lord's Supper, as some of the early saints would just call it the sacrament, what would that be?

Would you hold to like a spiritual presence view? Would you hold to a Zwingli? We're not all, oh, my bad.

Oh, no, go ahead. Because there are different views within the Reformed camp.

And it's interesting because I probably would lean more Zwingli, but I've heard one scholar put it like this.

You got the pure memorialist view that we're just going through the motions.

We're going to have a cracker. We're going to have grape juice, and we do it about four times a year.

And that's kind of where the Baptists typically land. And that's not us. But then when

I say us, twelve, five. And then you do have Calvin's view of more of, you know, the presence of Christ.

And you can correct me on this, but I think Calvin had an interesting take where instead of God kind of coming to man, really, when we're partaking, we are going up into the heavenlands.

It's more of us coming to God. And there's actually elements that I really appreciate about what

Calvin had to say in terms of God's presence with his people. I think you do get into some philosophy and the metaphysics of how that all works out, and we don't truly know.

But I'm not team Zwingli either in this pure memorialist sense, but then there are principles when

Jesus does do this in remembrance of me. So here at twelve, five, we say there's kind of a middle ground between those views that we hold to.

It's not just pure memorialism, but it's sanctifying presence.

And we kind of joke about that because we use these terms a lot. But what we like to say is when we are partaking in communion, there's three things that we want to have in mind.

We're thinking back to what Christ has done for us in terms of the gospel and the substitutionary death and things like that.

And then the other thing is we're looking forward to the marriage of the supper of lamb. We're about the one day where we get to commune with God for eternity.

And this is the part that I think a lot of reformers perhaps miss. Maybe some of this is on me and my ignorance, but the present here and now as we are partaking with the rest of the body, we're doing this in unity, in unity with God, and we're doing it in unity with the body that we are currently partaking with.

And I'm always in favor of using wine. We do both. It's funny,

Robert. We do wine and grape juice, and we just say it for conscience sake. It's kind of how we approach communion here at Twelfth Hour.

And do you think there's any reason why like so many Baptists tend to only celebrate the Lord's Supper like maybe quarterly?

Yeah, I have a guess. I think it's a swing of the pendulum. Their reason would say is, well, we don't want to make it ritualistic, okay?

So we don't want to do it every week because we do look at some denominations that we would see as being legalistic.

And just to be totally transparent, the Church of Christ almost across the boards do it every Lord's Day. And I've heard some talk about if they don't do it, they feel like they're going to fall out of God's grace, and it's just this legalistic mindset.

And so I think there's a swing of the pendulum with a lot of general Baptists, Southern Baptists, and it's arbitrary when you think about it.

If you don't hold to the regular principle and you look at the patterns in the New Testament, it's anyone's game.

And I'm soft. I'm not over here saying that they're wrong for doing it quarterly.

I'm just saying you're missing out on a huge blessing to commune with God in a way that he's prescribed and with the body.

You do have some Baptists, you do have some churches that do it monthly. I have obviously more respect as you're getting closer to that regular principle of doing it weekly.

I have just kind of more respect. But then even on our side, you got to be careful to really combat against the ritualistic mindset.

Okay, no, that's perfect. Thanks for that. And I'm sure not just Catholics and Eastern Orthodox may be watching, and hopefully are watching this when it's posted, but even your friends in the

Lutheran group, and maybe some Anglicans as well, if you consider the remaining five conservative

Anglicans in the world out there, they will actually plan to say the use of is, you know, this is my body in 1

Corinthians and the Synoptics. So would it be fair to say you would understand the is to be interpretive, i .e.

this means my body, that Jesus is establishing a symbol, but not necessarily a prepository sacrifice, and so forth, at the

Last Supper? Yeah, no, I mean, really, it's funny, because I just think about Luther and, you know, his conversation with everyone and Zwingli, and really,

I feel like I've read something that said he was banging his fist on the table. Yeah, for those who are not going to know,

October 1st to 4th, 1529, I believe, during the Merbrick Colonial period, Luther et al.,

like Melanchthon, and then Zwingli, because Calvin wasn't around, he didn't convert until then, they were debating about, like, what does is mean, it's like Bill Clinton, you know, in the mid -90s, you know, about what the meaning of is is.

I believe, and it's been a while since I studied it, like, he actually got a penknife and wrote, this is my body, and that, and hoc est culpris meum, and it's like, come on,

Zwingli, what the purpose is, don't he know, you know, so, yeah, he was very animated about that. Yeah, so I think this conversation does go back to this ancient conversation of what is intended by is, this is my body, and what

I've tried to point out to people is, when Jesus was instituting the Lord's Supper and the

New Covenant, I think he was talking in a very metaphoric context with the

Lord's Supper, and it's pointing to Jesus, right, being the Passover lamb, as the

Apostle Paul would later would say, so that's kind of my justification for the is there, is in a very metaphorical remembrance context, and other context clues that I'd point throughout the

Gospels, this is a little bit more apparent, I think, but like when you go to the parable of the sower, you see the

Gospel is the seed, right, and so just trying to show that there's warrant for, this is more symbolic, but then

I tell people, I don't want to arrive at a purely memorialistic position, like I do want to give room for saying, you know,

God can work in ways that's beyond my limited understanding of these things, how is it that the infinite

God and the Holy Spirit can indwell me, I don't know how that works, you know, God is omnipresent in these ways, and so I just say,

I don't know, so there's a part of me that just says, look, I'm somewhere in the middle of the real presence in the memorial, so yeah.

Okay, and you would understand the term anonymous remembrance in Luke and 1 Corinthians to be not a memorial sacrifice, as some would argue, but it's more like, not something like a physiological remembrance, but for lack of a better term, a physiological tool, a tool for physiological remembrance of like the atoning sacrifice of Christ, in your view, because it's penal substitution, once we're all debt paid, you know, and so forth, would that be correct?

Right, oh yeah, you know, you totally got it, because, you know, I'm thinking of the ongoing debate, or ongoing,

I think as a Reformed Baptist, I am still reforming and protesting against Rome, and that has, that goes back to how we understand righteousness, and, you know, is this more of imputation, or is it infusion?

Those are all related things, like you're talking about. Yeah, and as I said,

I'm not going to debate you, so I won't bring up the whole imputation versus infusion debate, so you got all this time, but I will note, like, you're debating

Peter Williams in the near future, and he is probably the best Catholic apologist, well, one of the best anyway, when it comes to, like,

Eucharistic theology. He had a very good debate against Cecil Andrews, and he— I'm gonna have to eat a big slice of humble pie debating with him.

No, he's a very smart guy, and he's also done excellent work on the pro -life in England, so, but yeah,

I just thought I'd mention that. I might actually reach out to him to actually get him on the show sometime, but okay, so that's

Eucharistic theology. We have two other issues before I kind of ask you some questions that often come up.

The next will be atonement and soteriology, and the final one will be the priesthood of all believers, so when it comes to the

Reformed Baptist understanding of the atoning sacrifice of Christ, as well as soteriology, and that's, for those who may not know, the fancy term for theology of salvation, let's kind of begin with the theology of salvation first.

What's the Reformed Baptist understanding of justification, sanctification, works, pre - and post -conversion?

Yeah, this is— I'm really glad you asked that, because this is one of those major distinctives with what separates me from kind of just regular

Baptists, you know. We kind of start with the Trinity, and this goes to covenant theology, there being kind of three primary covenants.

You got the redemptive covenant of God between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in eternity past.

We'll talk a little bit— that's really key, and then you got the covenant of works, then you got the covenant of grace, and so kind of salvation is— it's really all of redemptive history is unfolding before our eyes, and it's been determined by God, and when

I say God, the triune God, you have God the Father electing and choosing a bride for the

Son. The Son is a perfect Savior for that bride, laying His life down for her, and then the

Holy Spirit regenerates that bride in space and time and seals her unto the day of redemption, and so then the bride, once again, is the elect of God, those whom

God has predestined, and so this plays a huge part, because I'm already assuming at the outset that God is sovereign, that He elects people before whatever— before they've done good or bad or before they've even lived.

God has ordained and orchestrated and is orchestrating from beginning to end salvation and redemption as we know it.

So where do we go from there? Okay, well, that's— so what's— so how would you define justification?

How would you define sanctification? How are they related? How are they different? Oh, okay, good. So with that foundation, with, you know,

God kind of monergistically being at work, mono meaning God, one, He is the one accomplishing these things, from the human perspective.

Justification hinges on somebody looking to Jesus Christ in saving faith.

We would say that saving faith is repent and believe. It's a repentant faith, but this is also another reformed distinctive.

We would say the Holy Spirit has to regenerate a person's heart, someone who's dead in sins and trespasses, not seeking after God, going their own way, being hostile to God.

The Holy Spirit interrupts that person's life and changes their heart with the proclamation of the gospel.

So this— we would say this is an instantaneous miracle, but regeneration always has logical priority.

And so from the human perspective, though, when a person hears the gospel, is convicted over their sin, and sees their need for Christ, they would repent and believe and look to Jesus in saving faith.

And we would say faith alone, apart from their works. And so that's how a person is justified, by faith, apart from anything that they can do.

This is something that's of the heart, looking to Jesus in saving faith. That person is justified. In light of one's justification, he now lives the entire rest of his life in sanctification.

So let me back up a little bit. So back to justification, what took place was a judicial act of God declaring a person no longer guilty of the sin, and they're declared righteous.

So they've received in exchange Jesus's perfect righteous obedience to the law, covering their account, and then all of their sin gets put on calvary.

So this massive exchange happens. So like Romans 4, and obviously I would quote Genesis 15, 6,

Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. My understanding is legazami.

This is a legal, forensic, judicial term describing this transaction that happens with sinner and God, and is now simultaneously a sinner and a saint.

But all that happens at justification, and then sanctification is really more relational language.

We now live in light of that positional standing that we have with God. And so, you know, we're talking about Calvinism.

This kind of gets to the P of TULIP, is perseverance of the saints is probably not the best term.

I would argue more of a preservation of the saints. This is really more of the Holy Spirit carrying us along in spite of ourselves.

So it's really a work of God, you know, kind of holding us, not letting us stumble, as Jude says, that he causes us not to stumble away, so to speak.

And we can get into some more of the text that the Calvinists better have some good explaining to do. And then obviously, justification, sanctification, and then glorification is the end goal.

And then ultimate sanctification will lead into life after death with God for eternity.

And the nature of the atonement, that would be the penal substitutionary model of atonement. So for those who may not know that forensic model of atonement, what does that entail?

Yeah, so when you say penal, we're talking about punishment. We would see God as judge, the righteous judge.

And we'd look to Romans, we'd look for to John 3, about we are incurring God's wrath. We actually stand condemned as lawbreakers.

And so we are earning for ourselves the penalty that's due us one day.

We not only have a little bit of glimpse of that punishment here on earth, but I actually hold to hell being eternal punishment.

And so there's a punitive aspect that we are lawbreakers before God being the righteous judge. And so our sin isn't that we've just messed up, but that we are transgressing and breaking

God's law. So we need a substitute to step in our place and on our behalf.

And so that's when we look to like Isaiah 53, we look to Colossians 2

Corinthians 5, 21. God the Father is putting all of the sin of the elect on Jesus Christ as though he committed all of them and he's taking it in our stead.

And so we can get that perfect righteousness of Jesus, the righteousness of God imputed credited to us when we look to Jesus and saving faith and then all of our sin punitively.

The penalty aspect is all of God the Father's wrath is being poured out on the son.

Okay. And just for some clarifications, when it comes to justification, you would not view justification as transformative.

It's only, I don't want to use the term only, but for lack of a better term, it's a change in one's legal status before God.

Sanctification, processional sanctification is what's transformative, if you will.

Yes. Now you said it well, that's why I kind of pushed for a hard distinction between justification and sanctification.

There's that immediate point of contact when you're justified by faith alone, then you're immediately sanctified.

But the transformative is that walk with Christ, walking in the light as he's in the light and the Holy Spirit being involved in us.

But yeah, that's a major distinctive of like us and Roman Catholics is where they see the righteousness of Christ being infused over time on your behalf.

So kind of seeing justification as being stretched out as well. Okay. And scripture often speaks about the intercessory work of Christ, like Hebrews 7, 8, 1 and 3, he's the minister de liturgios and so forth.

And in Romans 8, there's like Christ and the Holy Spirit's interceding. And in 1 John 2, he's the propitiation to Hellasmus for our sins and the sins for the whole world.

Now I'm not bringing up like universal atonement here, but like how would you understand the present work of Christ? He's like a heavenly intercessor.

So in the penal substitutionary model, how would you understand Christ's intercessory work? Yeah, I'm glad you alluded to Romans 8, because this is something that I really feel like a lot of reformed

Baptists, not even reformed Baptists, but Baptists in general, I'm just like, Jesus is our paraclete, right?

You mentioned he's the advocate, but he's the perfect high priest that doesn't fail. He saves to the uttermost, like you read from Hebrews.

But Romans 8, I think really captures a lot of things here. I just like to read just a couple of verses. Romans 8, 33 begins, who shall bring a charge, any charge against God's elect?

It is God who justifies, who is to condemn. This is key. Christ Jesus is the one who died, and then argument from the lesser to the greater, more than that, who was raised, who is indeed at the right hand of God, who is indeed is interceding for us.

So I try to explain to people, you know, I get, you know, John 3, 16, throw me all the time. It doesn't say he died for the elect.

Show me a verse. I'm like, okay, let's go to Romans 8, where he's talking about the elect. And then he says,

Christ Jesus is the one who died in the context for his people. Paul is saying us.

We understand Romans 8 begins with there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. So I would argue the elect is the us that Paul is identifying with.

So not only did he die, but he, more than that, was raised.

So his death, his penal substitutionary death was for us. And then more than that, he was raised. So Romans 6, kind of how we've been raised in such a way to walk in newness of life with Christ.

And then he continues this priestly intercessory work for us. I mean, he indeed intercedes. So what does that look like?

When I look at 1 John 1, I like this type of language, that he is our advocate.

He's coming to bat for us. When we sin, we have this accuser, right? We would know him as Satan, who is constantly accusing the saints,

Revelation 12. And it's almost like Jesus is our defense attorney, right? And this judicial aspects say, no, he's been covered.

So I think in a very real sense, when Jesus told Peter, Satan wanted to sift you like wheat, but I've prayed for you that he might not do those things.

I think that's a good representation of how Jesus continues to intercede for us. But I've told someone recently, the

Holy Spirit is very much involved in this as well. In Romans 8, even when we don't know how we ought to pray, the

Holy Spirit intercedes with groanings too deep for utterance or word. And so I think there's an element to where you do see the paraclete also mentioned for Jesus and the

Holy Spirit, because both are at work on the believer's behalf. Okay. Yeah, that's good.

And the final topic we'll discuss before we're going to go into like some of the common questions. And I've kind of not discussed like Christology and the

Trinity, because that would be like an entire show on its own. One of these days, Robert.

Yeah, we'd love to. One of these days. But so what is the priesthood of all believers? Yes. So the priesthood.

So you may have to help me on the passage from Exodus. Is it 19? I feel like 1

Peter 2 is quoting from. The way that I would see the priesthood is Jesus is the fulfillment of the old priesthood, but we are made priest in light of Jesus's finished work and him kind of being the ark, right?

The ultimate high priest. But all this is kind of imagery for believers that we have been radically transformed in light of who

Jesus is. And so we are partakers. We are heirs with him. All these are kind of interestingly connected to that, that we've inherited this kingdom.

And so we are high priests in these types of sense. Not that this doesn't cross over into our ecclesiology, how we would see it.

But these are all language kind of showing our new position, our new status as being children of God.

Okay, that's good. And when it comes to like certain texts in the Old Testament, like Isaiah 66, that speak about like God making

Levites, what do you view that as like, not to be taken at a literal value, but like it's symbolic of the church age and the priesthood of all believers?

Yeah, I mean, I think those are good questions because I see a lot of continuity between ethnic

Israel and I would appeal to Ephesians 2 as the new man, this almost new church.

Because I read there is a church, there is an assembly in the Old Testament, but there is something different.

God's people before Jesus's death on the cross, and then God's people in light of that post cross.

So I see a lot of the Old Testament, you know, I don't go full -blown Lutheran or Roman Catholicism with the typology, but I do see a lot of types and shadows in the

Old Testament pointing to something that is still yet to come. So even with the priesthood, I think there's a lot of interesting, good context for the

Old Testament. I'm actually not 100 % sure on the passage you raised in Isaiah 66, but I do think it's maybe

Exodus 19 that kind of alludes to God's people and calling them priests and so forth.

And I want to acknowledge that Aaron was a priest and you had this particular lineage.

I would see that kind of pointing forward, though, a lot of those unique roles of theocratic

Israel as not being the same one -to -one for believers who live after Jesus' perfect fulfillment of the law, death, burial, resurrection, and his outpouring of the

Holy Spirit, those being more spiritual truths for the church today. Okay, no, that's perfect.

So we kind of touched on some of the distinctives and important beliefs and practices of the Reformed Baptist tradition.

So as I've told you in advance, some of the common arguments, and I will make a note, a number of these are not good arguments, but they keep coming up and being used against Reformed Protestants.

If you want good arguments against Calvinism, look at my article, it's my blog against Calvinism. But one, and I will admit,

I shudder whenever one uses this because it shows ignorance of the Greek. It's John 3, 16.

I'm sure you've heard it before, you know, Dave Hunt and others, you know, it's like, it says whosoever, so that shows that there's a libertarian freedom to the person to choose, to accept, not just simply reject

God. And it also says the world, you know. So, you know, you crazy Calvinists, you know, with your five minds, this shows a refutation of total depravity and also shows a rejection of limited atonement, and all you need is one of the petals for the flower to, like, wither away.

So how would you respond to, like, I'm sure you've come across John 3, 16 being thrown against you as well.

So, I think that's not a good argument to use, you know, the stress on whosoever and Christ being sent for the whole world.

Yeah, no, you're right. I mean, we'll say Arminians or provisionists, they will quote that verse as though we've never thought about John 3, 16, and you're familiar with the

Greek there. Whosoever believes, this is literally all the believing ones, and so what

I almost do immediately is saying, look, John 3, 16 shows particularity.

We agree. Whoever believes, all the believing ones will be saved. That's who's in view there, and so usually that's kind of a showstopper for the

Arminian that's just like, John 3, 16. It's like, oh man, they even believe that there's some particularity going on right there.

You mentioned the word world for cosmos. I just try to talk about there's a syntactic domain of that word, and context is the thing that gets to determine how that word is being used.

In John's gospel, we see that Jesus uses world differently. You know, he doesn't pray for the world. He prays for those that the

Father has given them in John chapter 17, so I tell them that world, you have to make a case if it's going to be all without exception, which would be their view, or all without distinction, which would be more of the

Calvinistic reform view of saying this is talking about types of people, the whole world of humanity, which is

Jew and Gentile, and you know, context, you and I, we understand that context is king ultimately in these things.

Exegesis is important. It's just equally ultimate with the context of the passage, and so trying to develop the conversation to saying, look,

Jesus is talking with Nicodemus here, then you get into issues of what it means to be born again, conversation of regeneration, and so yeah,

John 3, 16 is not a defeater for Calvinism. If you don't mind, there's another verse that's usually coupled with John 3, 16, and it's 1

John 2, 2, right? You're familiar with all the events that are connected with that, right? Yeah, yeah, that is the propitiation, the helosmos for the

Earth, but not Earth, but only for the entire cosmos, for the cosmos, yeah. So you would understand cosmos there.

They asked to be regenerate believers at that time, but like the cosmos to be those who will be called out eventually and redeemed.

Yeah, if I can, just briefly, what I would tell people. So the fact that John says whole world,

I said you should automatically think, okay, he is trying to get at something particularly with that.

He just doesn't just say world, he says whole world, and in 1 John 5, 19, he uses whole world again, and this is how that verse reads, and we know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one, and so I tell people his whole world is always qualified with the context that is surrounding it, so he is actually making a true dichotomy here.

You have the children of God. We know that we are of God, but then he says the whole world,

I would say, are talking about unbelievers. They are in the power of the evil one, so whole world is being limited to those who are unbelievers, and so back in 1

John 2, 2, I think verse one kind of qualifies what whole world is being used in this particular context.

He is talking about Jesus being the paraclete or advocate, and then he goes in. He is the propitiation for our sins, the apostle

John is saying, and not only for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world, and so my position says

Jesus is only a high priest, an intercessor, or advocate only for those who believe in him, and so a little bit of context with the apostle

John. He has a Jewish ministry, right? His ministry is for the circumcised when we see

Galatians chapter 2, and so here I would just say he is talking to Jewish Christians saying, look,

Jesus did not atone and propitiate for our sins only, but even for the Gentile world. We see clues of this in like John chapter 11.

We would expect similar terminology where he says Jesus did not only, where he is talking about Caiaphas, the high priest, who unbeknownst to what he was saying was this man is going to die not only for this particular thing, but for a much larger context, the children of God that are worldwide, and so that is actually really similar to what is said in Revelation 5 .9,

which John wrote that as well, so yeah, just going back to the immediate context, I tell people the whole world here always has to be interpreted in light of its immediate context, and John is writing to a

Jewish Christian group, and then he is saying, look, he did not only die for us, but also for the

Gentile world as well. Okay. Of believers, yeah. Maybe next time when we talk, we could actually discuss like the present verb and propitiation and what that would mean for penal substitution, but maybe next time.

So what are the allowable positions for like, you know, there is a number of warning passages that, at least on the pre -Mephasi reading, would indicate true believers could indeed lose their salvation.

Now, I do not think anyone would argue there has been like superficial believers, so we are not talking about that, but like passages where it speaks about those who have been truly justified and called out losing their salvation, like, so to limit it to maybe one or two, because there is a number, what are the allowable interpretations of say

Hebrews 6 and Hebrews 10? Yeah, yeah, and just kind of to set the foundation a little bit, the way that a reformer would understand these passages is the warning passages are being sent to the church.

Now, the church is made up of wheat and tares. You have some people that are just merely professors. They are just hanging out.

They are going through the motions. They are hypocrites in terms of they are wearing a facade, and then you have got the regenerate, those who are born again that are justified, and we would understand it does not work in reverse there.

So the warnings are meant to scare the living daylights out of this, and the regenerate will respond positively, and then ultimately over time, the tares, the unregenerate will be disobedient to those things.

Some allowable interpretations, I am glad you asked that, because the reformers, we are not all monolithic in how we understand

Ephesians 6 or Hebrews 6 and then Hebrews 10. So I hold the view that Hebrews 6 is talking about when you have been enlightened to such a degree where you understand the depths of the gospel and God's truth in terms of soteriology and whatnot, and you reject it wholeheartedly, like you understand it, and you have determined in your heart you do not want that, then in a sense,

I think that person that has been given a lot of light only to trample underfoot the blood of the covenant, it is going to be impossible for them to repent because they have been given so much light.

Now that is one view, and that is really more of how MacArthur, John MacArthur. Actually, just for clarification.

Oh, sorry, just for clarification. Some might, you know, just kind of curious as how you would answer this. Some would say, well, that's the case for everyone who's a reprobate, either passively or actively.

We're not going to go into the supra -infra -lepser debate. So, like, how is that different? Because it would be impossible for them to truly repent anyway to begin with, right?

Right. A key word in this discussion is compatibilism. So they are blinded anyway, but there is a difference between somebody that lives on, in a third world country, island of Boingo Boingo.

I mean, they're dead in their sins and their trespasses, but they've not been given a lot of light. They just had the light of creation.

Now God is sovereign in that, and that's compatible with how we choose. So what's also compatible is those religious who have been given a lot of light and are continuing to suppress the truth at a deeper level than someone who doesn't have as much knowledge.

And so I would just appeal that there are different depths of total depravity, if you will. We're not as sinful as we could be, but there's different degrees.

And so when we're talking somebody here in Hebrew 6, like an apostate, this is somebody that's actually believing that there's different degrees of punishment and hell.

That might be a good conversation for another time. But I think these false teachers, these apostates that have been given so much knowledge, they are going to be right there next to Satan, receiving a stricter and worse punishment than the person who had less light.

Okay. Okay, Dan. Thanks for clarifying that. Because I kind of knew some might just come back and say, you know, well, it's not the case for everyone.

So you would say they would still be condemned, but because God, in His mercy, has allowed them to hear the gospel preaching, it's just going to add to their condemnation at the end.

So you don't think it's a hypothetical in Hebrew 6? No, I don't.

Right. Because that's more of like an R .C. Sproul understanding, is a hypothetical reductio ad absurdum.

And I think that there's maybe some merit to that. But I take the other view that these are apostates that have been given.

Because what we don't see in that, and this kind of helps me with my position, we don't see terms like regeneration or justification.

We see things like they've tasted. They have been partakers in some degree.

Now, I don't think partaker means the full enchilada, but they've partook like the Pharisees.

They partook in witnessing the miracles of Jesus by the Holy Spirit. And they said, oh, you do the works of Beelzebub. They partook of the

Holy Spirit, but it was to their condemnation, right? They committed an unforgivable sin. So when somebody has been given the full light of the gospel, and they understand it and reject it, that's almost like the modern day parallel of blaspheming the

Holy Spirit. And like I said, I'm not super hard on that view. I just think that that's where I land. And when we talk about Hebrews chapter two, there's different views with that as well.

And this may be not the direction that you want to go. But when it talks about the one who has been sanctified,

I may have to turn there. I think it was John Owens. I tend to take that view, but I'm open to the other view that just talks about the apostate that is no longer walking in the faith, that was just a said believer.

But contextually, I like the argument that the nearest antecedent to the one that was sanctified is talking about Jesus and kind of trying to make a parallel to what

Jesus said that he consecrated himself in John chapter 17. But I'm aware of some of the rebuttals to that, and it's one of those things that I just tend to lean that way.

But I think there are other reformers that make a different argument for that as well. Yeah, and for those who want to see my interaction with John Owens and James White, I have an article

Hebrews 10, 26 to 29, John Owens and James White. So you would lean, although you're not dogmatic about it, that the one being sanctified is actually

Christ, and it's a reference to he's being sanctified as high priest and so forth, like John Owens in these columns here in Hebrews. Yeah, I lean that way.

So I serve a part of an eldership here at 12 .5, and me and Nathan don't always hold the same view because, you know, with Sola Scriptura, and you're encouraging people to be noblemen, we tell them, look, we're not going to always line up on every view.

Now, it must be the same on gospel issues and important issues of ecclesiology and things like that.

But these are things that I'm continually, you know, trying to think through, ultimately. Okay, like maybe like two or three other questions, and then we can actually do a wrap up, because you've been very patient here.

One would be, like, let's kind of discuss the whole Sola Scriptura issue. In your view, of course, the

Holy Spirit's still operative. You're not like a full -blown cessationist, like some radical groups like chrysotelephians would be.

But you would hold that public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle and inscription of the final book in the

New Testament. So I'm sure like some, especially those in a certain community, mine, would ask, do you believe that the cessation of public revelation is something that's explicit in the

Bible or implicit? You know, I think that's a great question, because when we have explicit,

I mean, I think that's a tall order, like it has to say it verbatim. So I guess it would be more along the implicit lines, and you'd have to build a cumulative case.

And this maybe is a good plug to just encourage people to go listen to my interaction with Joseph Leal.

It was about maybe two years ago. We got into the sufficiency of Scripture, kind of coupled with Sola Scriptura, and we did talk about the completion of the canon and how

I see that as being relevant with ongoing revelation. And so what texts do you think would be implicit in your view that public revelation would cease around the time of the end of the, say, the 90s?

No, no, this is a good question. So with my conversation with Joseph is,

I put a lot of stock into the apostles and their office and role.

And so some texts, I'd kind of start holistically and said, you got the Old Testament that points forward to Messiah.

We're in agreement at this point. And so when Jesus kind of comes onto the scene, he's fulfilling the

Old Testament. And the way that Hebrews 1 kind of articulates in these last days, when

Jesus comes, there's almost a new economy, right? There's continuity and so forth, but he's kind of setting something up brand new.

And what we see in the Gospel, or we see in the crossover of the Gospels, is you have

Jesus commissioning his apostles. And he says things like John's Gospel, that he will lead you into all truth.

This is the implicit nature that I'm getting at. And so Peter was there, and Peter kind of being the first of the apostles in terms of leadership and that voice, he is the one in Acts 1 saying, look, here's the criteria of how we're going to replace

Judas. You got to have been with Jesus in his earthly ministry. You had to be there from the beginning and kind of to the end.

And for those who are wondering, that's the Acts 1 and the replacement of Judas with Matthias. That's the justification for such.

Yes. Yeah. So you kind of have these rough qualifications there in order to be an apostle.

And so you see Peter, I say Peter, you see God essentially giving a slight exception to the rule with the apostle

Paul coming onto the scene by being an apostle born out of due time. And we'll kind of talk about that here again in a second.

But what you see with the apostles and those closely associated with the apostles is they are writing scripture.

Second Peter 3 kind of articulates this, that our brother Paul, he writes things that are hard to understand, that get twisted like the rest of scripture.

And so, and I think it is safe to say kind of implicitly, as you see the apostles continuing to be a herald of God in terms of giving us what is theanoustos,

God breathed his word. And so to give you props, Robert, when I was interacting with Joseph Laal, one of mine, and I want to be careful how

I do this, especially from this point on, when we see that the apostle Paul is the last of all the apostles, one born out of due time,

I don't want to make that like the slam dunk argument of saying, you know, he's the last apostle and then no more revelation after him.

I want it to be like an implicit point in this bigger accumulative case, because if we were to just go to that, I don't think you can prove solo scripture from that, or you can prove that that's all revelation stopped with the apostle

Paul, because obviously you got John writing revelation. So I just thought you've done a good job of checking me and saying, okay, you know, how does this really shake into the whole conversation?

Okay. Really tempted not to turn this into a debate on solo scripture, but maybe in the near future, we could actually have a full debate on that.

But yeah. So the cessation of public revelation would say it's accumulative case, but it's implicit.

There's no explicit text, you know? Yeah. Okay. And just one final question before we're going to wrap up, and I'm sure you've...

I will drop another book plug, something I would... Oh, no, go ahead. Something that I'd actually recommend you to read so you and I can have a good conversation about this in the future.

I really want to recommend to people a book called The Canon of Scripture, a presuppositional study by Philip Kaiser.

He makes a few incredible arguments. He actually tries to make more of an explicit case for scripture only being at the hands of prophets.

This is where I'm willing to critique my view a little bit. And the apostles functioned as prophets when they gave a scripture along with Luke, Jude, James.

They, in those moments of giving scripture, were functioning as a prophet. Really compelling case. And so I'll give you a big point that I'm studying through this book.

I've read it once already and I've already started reading back through it. I really like some of the points. He makes the case that Daniel 9, when you got kind of the short list right before you get the destruction of the temple, is you will have sealed up vision and prophet.

And then he tries to make the case that the culmination of those 70 weeks of Daniel happened with the destruction of the temple.

So his point is there's no more vision. There's no more prophet after the destruction of the temple.

So something else that has to be contended for is that the book of Revelation would have had to be written before 70

AD. He has arguments for those things, but there are those out there that make the explicit case that there is no more vision or prophet or revelation after 70

AD. I just ordered the book on Amazon, so I'll let you know when it arrives. It's a 400 -page book, but me, a 400 -page book is fine.

So we can discuss it maybe later, but thanks for the recommendation. Absolutely. And just one other question that usually comes up is like, well, in your view,

God, whether you're infra or superlapsarian, God has actively elected people infallibly, and that won't change.

It's unconditional, and it won't change. And whether he actively or passively did so, and that's a super -infralapsarian debate, we won't go into that because it's like the philiaokic cause.

It's super esoteric. There's a reprobate people, and no matter what, the reprobate will never be able to repent truly.

They may feign religiosity, but they're not true believers, so forth. I'm guessing in your view, you would agree with most reforms that the call to repent and believe the gospel is for everyone without distinction.

Would that be correct? And some, myself included, would say that that's a contradiction.

God is basically commanding the impossible. So how would you respond to someone who would say, well, isn't there actually a problem or an issue with God calling everyone to repentance without distinction?

But since the eternal past, and he's known this infallibly, he's also actively elected the elect, will only grant to the elect at a time he's foreordained to irresistibly call them and to redeem them, and so forth.

So can you see the dichotomy, and how would you respond to that issue? Sure. Well, I think it's a great question, and these are things where I have to really think about certain passages that would make me go down this line.

The reason why it makes sense conceptually is, I think there's a passage in 2 Corinthians that talks about the gospel essentially being a sweet -smelling aroma for those who are being saved, and then it's like smoke in the nostril of those that hate

God. And so what I see the gospel as being is like a magnet, and it's drawing those, we would say the elect, for those that God is working in that are convicted over sin, and it's repelling those that want nothing to do with God.

So when you look at prophets in the Old Testament, some people's ministry, I think it was the prophet of Isaiah, or perhaps

Jeremiah, so that's God's prerogative, yet the heralding of the gospel is to repent and condemn for people that did not repent.

People reject that, and I would say that's one means in which God uses for him working out his plan of redemption.

There are those that will only reject it. I think what keeps me sane is knowing that I do not know who is going to respond positively to the gospel, or continues to reject it throughout their life, or who fake it and all those things.

I leave those things up to God, but I'm just called to be faithful, to call all men everywhere to repent, like Acts chapter 17.

But it kind of gets down to the unregenerate and their hostility and hatred for God will only reject it.

Now that rejection may happen in religiosity, or paganism, or hedonism, whatever, but then the regenerate, those that God has foreordained, that God is working in their life, this will be that sweet -smelling aroma when they finally hear the good news.

And so I think that's how I view it, is that's one of the means in which God has determined to store up wrath for the day of wrath for those that reject it wholeheartedly.

Now a big part in this is compatibilism. I think it's compatible for God to determine a world and everything that's going to happen within it to have purpose.

That's the whole cake. Like I tell people, if they're going to hold to a high view of God's sovereignty, it has to be determinism.

God has all knowledge, and not like Molinism, of all possible events, no, but he has exhaustive knowledge of what is going to be.

Now that also would include our genuine, not libertarian actions, but our genuine feelings of choice, of wanting to do something.

I see those being compatible together. People will simply reject it, those that God has purposes in, and it's compatible because they feel that vitriol, that hatred and rejection, that they will be held accountable to the light that has been given to them.

So we can go a few different directions with this, but I want to give you a chance to chime in. Wait, I don't want to take too long.

We could spend like hours on each question, but would you agree, though, that God is commanding for the reprobation?

And I'm guessing you're infralapsarian, but correct me on that, you know, so he passed it on. Regardless, he's commanding the impossible when it comes to the reprobation.

In some senses, I can understand where the question is coming from. When he's commanding the impossible, it's interesting to phrase it like that because they are being commanded to do something that their nature detests and rebels against.

So this is where the only way I could say yes to it is in this compatibilistic sense. God is foreordained for his purposes, and yet, you know, in a very natural sense, within time and space, the choice to choose

A or B is there, but they will always, according to their nature, choose B, a choice of rejection, and they ascertained, you know, the possibility of choosing

A, but why in the world would I bend the knee to receive Jesus as my Lord and Savior? I'm totally fine with living life how

I want. I don't want to give up. So it depends what you mean by the impossible. Yeah, on one hand,

God has purpose in all things that he has predetermined before the foundation of the world, but I try to encourage people that plan redemption that's unfolding is very much real, and their rejection of that from God's perspective couldn't be any other way, but their choices are legit in the matter of choosing their rejection.

So I don't want to sound like, you know, a politician that doesn't answer the question, but God, I would say the gospel is meant to go out to the reprobate, but God has a purpose in their rejection of it.

So feel free to press me more on that, because I don't want to seem like I'm not answering the question. No, no, I get you, like, this is the importance of the total depravity and compatibilist freedom when it comes to the whole debate.

I would reject both, but how I would view it, and it would be more nuanced, but just to give a brief overview, is like, when it comes to rejecting the gospel, that's the case for the elect until their urges be called.

You know, there is the belief in Reformed theology that just an elect person is totally depraved until they're regenerated and urges be called.

So they'll naturally reject the teams of God, they'll reject the gospel message, they can even resist the Holy Spirit when it's not solidifically calling them or dragging them, if you will.

So the view would be, and again, it would be a bit more nuanced, but just to give a little less nuanced position just for time,

God predestines whether actively the election of his people, the elect, and the elect only, and he'll only grant the elect only the gift of repentance.

It's something God has to grant first, you would agree. So when he's calling someone, he has either actively or passively, and again,

I'm not going to go into the whole esoteric, infralibus, superlapsarian debate. That'd be fun, but maybe just me, you, and someone else who's read

Baxter will actually know what's going on here. Even if he's passive in it, and maybe

I should ask, without going into too much detail, do you believe in passive reputation? Yeah, so real quick, just as kind of a qualifier, when we talk about infralapsarianism, supra, and all these things,

I actually have a problem with all of them to some degree or another because of our creatureliness within time and space.

It's really hard for me to get into the mind of God and trying to figure out which has logical priority. One illustration that I heard that I really liked is like when you bake a cake, at the very beginning, you have the bowl and you have these ingredients.

It doesn't matter which ingredient you put in first in order to start making the cake, and so when we start talking about did

God have in mind the elect first or the reprobate and how that all pans out, I'm not sure, but this is how

I've told people, and I think this has really helped people understand my perspective. So Ephesians 1,

I would see the trinity there, and then you get a clue there in verse 3 and 4 before the foundation of the world, and so verse 11 talks about the counsel of God, and so what

I tell people is this is a trinitarian counsel. God the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, in some type of way that we can only know analogously, like our human language doesn't begin to actually represent what's going on, but you have the trinity counseling about which logically possible world to actualize and create.

Now I'm saying time and space and everything that comes about from that and how redemptive history is going to pan out to the praise of His glorious grace, so something

I would caution people against is I would want to stay away from what's called equal ultimacy.

How God chose the elect would include His extension of grace and mercy of how

He's going to bring about those attributes in drawing the elect. It does look differently.

It's asymmetrical in terms of how God has set up and ordained the reprobate, and I do think there is passive involved now.

It's all mapped out before the foundation of the world, but in terms of secondary causes of how God brings that about,

He uses different secondary means to bring about His purposes for the reprobate than how

He effectually is at play and at work in the lives of those that He's lavishing

His love, His grace, His mercy upon. Does that make sense? I want to say there is a counsel of God where they determine it, but as it plays out in real time, there's a radical distinction of how

God relates to both. Yeah, although unless there's one that's actually studied Reformed theology, there's a lot of inside baseball at the moment, and being the rare Latter -day

Saint who's read Calvin and Francis Church. But so we can move on, but just to give my two cents, anyone who wants to look up my article,

A Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlining Reformed Theology, it's a response to another

Reformed Baptist in the UK. We're not going to go into this, but okay, well, we've actually been at it for a while now.

I do appreciate your time. Before we end things, any books or if someone wanted to say,

I'm kind of curious about this Reformed theology, I'm curious more specifically about this Reformed Baptist tradition, if you could recommend any books or articles.

I'll be linking, of course, to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith in the show notes, but if there's any books, articles, resources, one that I would recommend would be the three -volume

Creeds of Christendom by Philip Schaff, if you want to go into, like, say, the Council of Dorton, it's the

Crees, but any modern works you would recommend on various topics we discussed today? Yeah, and a little bit of this will bleed over to other authors that have impacted my life in terms of how

I've ended up where I am today. I would definitely say Dr. James White has been one of the most influential writers, speakers, debaters in my life, so I hope you get to debate him on various issues.

I just, I would hate to see that, but The Potter's Freedom, even though he wrote that in response to Norman, was it

Norman Geisler's Chosen but Free? Yeah, Geisler's Chosen but Free. I have the second edition of both books.

I say this as someone who's a critic of Reformed theology, Geisler's book is dreadful. The Potter's Freedom is really good because it really deals with the objections and issues, but not only engages with that, but then presents kind of this

Reformed tradition in a positive light, so I definitely recommend The Potter's Freedom, and then in understanding

Reformed soteriology and how justification is so important in that, and the Book of Romans, especially in opposition to Roman Catholicism, I also recommend

Dr. White's book The God Who Justifies, so those have been really good books, and this is not a Reformed Baptist recommendation, but R .C.

Sproul, I've really appreciated a lot of his insights into just, you know, understanding the sovereignty of God, so he wrote

Chosen by God and The Holiness of God. Those are two really good books. A .W.

Pink wrote The Sovereignty of God and The Attributes of God that I highly recommend to people because I, like, remember earlier when

I said Stulip, the S is really foundational for everything else working properly, so you got to have the right view of God in order to have the right view of man, and so The Attributes of God, it's just up there in terms of you got to understand what a saiety is, what

God's omniscience looks like, a lot of his immutable attributes, his incommunicable attributes, if you will, so there's a lot of those types of books that I would just say man, maybe we can link some more in the description, but yeah, you've, obviously, the second, the

London Baptist, 1689, that's going to be kind of an overarching view of kind of what the

Reformed heritage looks like. Okay, that's wonderful, and before we end, if someone wanted to reach out to you, what would be the best way to get in contact and see your previous videos, debates, and works?

Yes, hey, I thought of one more book. Go ahead. You might appreciate this plug, because you got to think,

I'm a Reformed Calvinist, and the reason why we say Reformed Calvinist is because Reformed theology is not

Calvinist, there's distinctions, but they're definitely related, so anyway, but I'm Trinitarian to the core, and as maybe we can talk about at another time, especially with Joseph Laal, but I'm also presuppositional in my methodology and apologetics in terms of contending for the faith, so there's a book out there by B .A.

Bosterman, Brant Bosterman, on the Trinity, the Vindication of Christian Paradox, a Refinement of Cornelius Van Til.

I would highly, this book is up there in terms of, you know, nuance, and I had to have a dictionary almost every page, but it paid off in terms of really understanding the arguments that he's putting forth, so I just wanted to recommend that book, just real quick, in passing.

And just on presuppositional apologetics, we'll have Joseph Laal on in the near future to give a critique of it, but one of the best books on presuppositional apologetics is

Van Til's Apologetic by the late Greg Bonson, so it's like a biblical commentary where you have the biblical text, and then you have the exegesis, you have

Cornelius Van Til's writings, and he's like the granddaddy of modern presupp apologetics, and you have

Greg Bonson, who's probably the best presupp debater there was, he passed away in 94 after complications of heart surgery, but it's a hefty tome, but it was the first book

I read on presupp apologetics, and it's much better than the lack of burden, the bastardized form you get on the internet and web circles, it's the actual

Bonson -Van Tilian presupp, not the watered -down stuff you come across.

Yeah, I totally recommend that. Yeah, so if you want to look at some of my content, obviously

I'll be promoting the apologetic dog in the near future, so be on the lookout for that. You can look up my name on YouTube, Jeremiah Nortier, and I'm just keeping kind of a running archive of some of my sermons, my debates, and a lot of my debates will have a link over to Marlon's channel at The Gospel Truth, and then

Robert will post a link to 12 Five Church where we keep a lot of our stuff, but yeah, just be on the lookout for the apologetic dog, and anybody can reach out to me on Facebook, send me, that's kind of how me and Robert started connecting with each other is he was asking me really hard questions in my debate against Joseph Leal about two years ago, and eventually that overflowed into email, so I'm definitely for email, but if you want some of those things, just reach out to me on Facebook Messenger.

I'd love to be your friend, and let's continue to have good dialogue and discuss the scriptures together. Well, Jeremiah, I do greatly appreciate your time.

Hopefully this has been educational for those who will watch this video. Hopefully Latter -day Saints and others who are not

Calvinists and even themselves who are critical of Reformed theology will actually have a better grasp of what you believe and also, more importantly, why you believe it, so like interactions will be much more fruitful, and we won't be speaking past the monitor, and again,

I do greatly appreciate your time, and hopefully we can have you on again in the near future. So with that, again, greatly appreciate your time, and until next time, take care and God bless.